UPDV Bible Header

UPDV Updated Bible Version

Matthew Chapter 12 — Caesarea Philippi, the Transfiguration, and Elijah

Overview

UPDV chapter 12 covers the central turning point of the Gospel narrative: Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi (12:1-5), the first passion prediction and Peter's rebuke (12:6-8), the discipleship sayings (12:9-13), the transfiguration (12:14-18), the descent from the mountain (12:19-21), and the Elijah discussion (12:22-24). This material comes from canonical Matthew 16:13-17:13, based on Mark 8:27-9:13.

The most significant editorial decision in this chapter is the removal of the Peter material — the beatitude, the rock saying, and the keys of the kingdom (canonical Matt 16:17-19) — which Davies and Allison consider pre-Matthean tradition rather than editorial composition. The most significant textual reversion is the rewriting of the descent from the mountain and the Elijah discussion to Mark's more primitive form, replacing the compiler's clarifications with the earlier tradition's deliberate ambiguities.

Peter's Confession (12:1-4)

"Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of Man is?" The confession scene (12:1-4) comes from canonical Matt 16:13-16 via Mark 8:27-29. The compiler's version follows Mark closely, with minor expansions — adding "Jeremiah" to the list of popular identifications (12:2), using "the Son of Man" where Mark has simply "I" — that do not alter the narrative structure.

Davies and Allison confirm that the popular identifications — "John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets" (12:2) — "probably present us with information from the lifetime of Jesus." The conjecture that Jesus was a prophet of one sort or another is "just what one would expect from sympathetic Jews of the pre-Easter period." The addition of Jeremiah is either from M or a redactional expansion; Davies and Allison note that "Jeremiah" is also redactional in 2:17 and 27:9, and Matthew is the only NT author to name him.

The UPDV's text of Peter's confession reads: "You are the Christ" (12:4). The canonical text has "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (16:16). The UPDV drops "the Son of the living God" because the expanded title has no parallel in Mark 8:29, where Peter says simply σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός (sy ei ho christos, "You are the Christ"). Davies and Allison acknowledge that the additional phrase either "comes from M or is redactional" — it could be traditional material the compiler incorporated, or his own theological expansion. Luke's parallel (Luke 9:20) also has the shorter form: "the Christ of God." The UPDV follows the form attested by both Mark and Luke.

The Rock and the Keys (Canonical Matt 16:17-19) — Removed

The removal of 16:17-19 is the most controversial editorial decision in this chapter, and it requires extended discussion because Davies and Allison argue at considerable length that this material is pre-Matthean tradition, not redactional composition.

Their case rests on several pillars. First, the vocabulary: 16:17-19 contains words and expressions the compiler does not use elsewhere — Βαριωνᾶ (Bariōna, "son of Jonah"), σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα (sarx kai haima, "flesh and blood"), πύλαι ᾅδου (pylai hadou, "gates of Hades"), κατισχύω (katischyō, "prevail"), κλεῖς (kleis, "keys"). Second, the Semitisms: the passage contains a higher percentage of Semitic idioms than is normal for redactional material — "flesh and blood" as a rabbinic technical term for human agency in contrast to divine agency, the Aramaic wordplay between Κηφᾶ (Kēpha, "Cephas/rock") and κηφᾶ (kēpha, "rock"), the asyndeton of verse 19. Third, the Johannine parallels: Davies and Allison compile an extensive table showing that John's Gospel contains scattered parallels to every element of Matt 16:17-19 — the renaming of Simon as Cephas following a messianic confession (John 1:41-42), the theme of divine rather than human revelation (John 6:63, 65), Peter as shepherd of the flock (John 21:15-17), the power to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23). They suggest that "John knew the confession of Caesarea Philippi in a form close to that in Matthew and drew upon it at several junctures."

Davies and Allison even entertain Bultmann's proposal that Matt 16:17-19 preserves the original ending to Peter's confession, which Mark or a predecessor dropped. They observe that Mark 8:27-30 is "an odd text" — if the secrecy charge of verse 30 is traditional, "we are asked to believe that early Christians passed on a pericope in which Jesus, after inviting discussion of the issue, responded to the church's confession — Jesus is the Christ — with an unexplained injunction to silence." They argue this suggests the original response has been lost, and wonder whether Matt 16:17-19 preserves that lost response.

The UPDV removes these verses despite this evidence. The decision rests on the UPDV's structural methodology rather than on a judgment that the material is necessarily inauthentic. The UPDV's operating principle is to reconstruct what the compiler received from his primary sources (Mark and Q) and to strip additions to those sources regardless of their ultimate origin. The compiler inserted 16:17-19 into a Markan pericope — the confession scene of Mark 8:27-30 — expanding it with material that Mark does not attest. Whether that material came from M tradition, oral tradition, or the compiler's own hand, its insertion into Mark's narrative is the compiler's editorial act, and the UPDV removes editorial insertions into Markan pericopes. This is the same principle applied to Peter walking on the water (canonical Matt 14:28-31), where Davies and Allison acknowledge the material may derive from pre-Matthean Peter traditions but note that "its placement here is his editorial work."

The reader should understand the weight of what is removed. The rock saying and the keys saying are among the most theologically significant verses in the New Testament. Davies and Allison's argument that they are pre-Matthean — grounded in hapax vocabulary, high Semitism density, and scattered Johannine attestation — is substantial and cannot be dismissed. The UPDV's removal reflects a methodological commitment to the Markan framework, not a verdict on the sayings' authenticity. A reconstruction that prioritized multiply-attested Jesus traditions regardless of their placement within the compiler's editorial architecture would retain these verses.

The Secrecy Charge (12:5)

"Then he charged the disciples that they should tell no man." The canonical text reads "that he was the Christ" (16:20), specifying the content of the silence command. The UPDV drops these words, following Mark 8:30, where the charge is simply "that they should tell no man of him" — broader and more enigmatic. The compiler's addition of "that he was the Christ" makes explicit what Mark leaves implicit, clarifying the messianic secret motif. The UPDV retains Mark's open-ended form.

First Passion Prediction and Peter's Rebuke (12:6-8)

"From that time Jesus began to show to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up." The first passion prediction (12:6) comes from canonical Matt 16:21, based on Mark 8:31. Davies and Allison note that the compiler's text follows Mark closely, with the characteristic substitution of "from that time Jesus began" (ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο, apo tote ērxato) for Mark's simple "and he began" — a Matthean temporal marker that also appears at 4:17, creating a structural parallel between the beginning of Jesus' public ministry and the beginning of the passion announcements.

Peter's rebuke — "Be it far from you, Lord: this will never happen to you" (12:7) — and Jesus' counter-rebuke — "Get behind me, Satan" (12:8) — follow the compiler's text of 16:22-23, which is itself a close rendering of Mark 8:32-33. The "stumbling-block" (σκάνδαλον, skandalon) language is the compiler's addition to Mark, but it occurs within a preserved pericope as a characterization of Peter's error — expanding the rebuke's theological content — rather than altering the narrative structure or creating new scenes. The UPDV retains it as part of the compiler's working of an inherited pericope, though the reader should note that this retention sits in tension with the UPDV's decision to revert the compiler's vocabulary choices in the descent narrative (17:9), where ὅραμα (horama, "vision") replaces Mark's phrasing. The difference is that the descent rewrites are part of a wholesale reversion to Mark's text for the post-Transfiguration sequence, whereas the passion prediction follows the compiler's version throughout.

Davies and Allison observe that the passion prediction and the rebuke raise a tradition-historical question about their relationship to the preceding confession. Three views have been advanced: (i) the unit is of a piece with the confession; (ii) the two were brought together by Mark or the pre-Markan tradition; (iii) the passion prediction is a secondary insertion, and originally the rebuke followed directly upon the confession, with Jesus rejecting Peter's nationalistic messianism. Davies and Allison regard the third option as "the least likely," since "if Jesus so clearly rejected the title 'Messiah,' it is incomprehensible how it came to be so widely employed in the early church."

Discipleship Sayings (12:9-13)

"If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." The discipleship block (12:9-13) comes from canonical Matt 16:24-28, based on Mark 8:34-9:1. Davies and Allison confirm that "Mark 8:34-9:1 is undoubtedly the source." The compiler followed Mark closely here, with only minor editorial adjustments — the characteristic addition of "his activity" (τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ, tēn praxin autou) at 16:27, where Mark 8:38 has a different formulation of the Son of Man's coming. The UPDV uses the compiler's text throughout this block.

The saying about not tasting death "until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (12:13) is one of the most difficult in the Gospel tradition. Davies and Allison discuss the standard interpretations — the transfiguration (which follows immediately), the resurrection, Pentecost, the destruction of Jerusalem, or the parousia — without reaching a firm conclusion. The UPDV preserves the compiler's text, which follows Mark 9:1 with the substitution of "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" for Mark's "the kingdom of God come with power."

The Transfiguration (12:14-18)

"And after six days Jesus takes with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and brings them up into a high mountain apart: and he was transfigured before them." The transfiguration narrative (12:14-18) comes from canonical Matt 17:1-5, based on Mark 9:2-7. The Exodus typology runs deep through both accounts — the six days recall Moses' ascent of Sinai (Exod 24:16), the high mountain parallels Sinai itself, the cloud is the Shekinah, and the divine voice echoes both Psalm 2:7 ("This is my Son") and Isaiah 42:1 ("in whom I am well pleased"), combining the royal-messianic and servant traditions.

The compiler added several details to Mark's account. The notice that Jesus' "face shone as the sun" (12:15) has no parallel in Mark, whose description is limited to Jesus' garments becoming "glistering, exceedingly white." Davies and Allison note that this addition creates a deliberate Mosaic parallel — after Moses descended from Sinai, "the skin of his face shone" (Exod 34:29) — and confirm it as "redactional" (cf. the same solar imagery at 13:43). Similarly, the compiler's description of the cloud as "bright" (φωτεινή, phōteinē) heightens the Shekinah imagery beyond Mark's simple "cloud overshadowing them." The compiler also modified the divine voice, adding "in whom I am well pleased" to Mark's "This is my beloved Son: hear him," creating a perfect verbal match with the baptismal voice at 3:17 and strengthening the Isaiah 42:1 allusion.

The UPDV retains the compiler's transfiguration text, including these additions. A methodological tension is evident here. Elsewhere in this chapter the UPDV rigorously strips the compiler's theological expansions — "the Son of the living God" is dropped from Peter's confession (12:4), "that he was the Christ" is dropped from the secrecy charge (12:5), and the entire Elijah discussion is reverted to Mark's more primitive form. By the same logic, the compiler's addition of "face shone as the sun" — which Davies and Allison confirm is redactional — should be stripped to recover Mark's simpler description of glistering garments. Similarly, "bright" and "in whom I am well pleased" are redactional enhancements absent from Mark. The UPDV's retention of these additions while reverting the compiler's clarifications in the descent narrative and Elijah discussion represents an inconsistency in the application of its Markan-reversion principle. The distinction appears to be that the Transfiguration additions modify existing Markan elements (garment description, cloud, voice) rather than inserting entirely new narrative content, but this same characterization could be applied to the compiler's clarifications that the UPDV strips elsewhere. The reader should note this tension.

However, the UPDV removes 17:6-7: "And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were exceedingly afraid. And Jesus came and touched them and said, Arise, and don't be afraid." Davies and Allison confirm this material "has no parallel in either Mark or Luke and is editorial." The compiler created these verses to insert his characteristic motif of the disciples' prostration and Jesus' reassuring touch — a pattern that recurs in his resurrection account (28:9-10). Mark places the disciples' fear earlier in the narrative (Mark 9:6), before Peter's suggestion about building tabernacles; the compiler relocated and expanded it to follow the divine voice, making the spoken word rather than the visual theophany the occasion for awe. This is an editorial insertion of new narrative content — two full verses creating a scene that does not exist in the source — and the UPDV strips it.

The UPDV's text of 12:19 — "And then they saw no one, except Jesus only" — is simplified from the compiler's 17:8 ("And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, except Jesus only"), which follows the removed prostration/reassurance scene. The UPDV's shorter form returns to something closer to Mark 9:8: "they saw no one anymore, except Jesus only with themselves."

The Descent and Secrecy Charge (12:20-21)

"And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, except when the Son of Man should have risen again from the dead." The descent (12:20) is rewritten from canonical Matt 17:9 to Mark 9:9. The compiler changed Mark's secrecy charge in several ways: he substituted ἐνετείλατο (eneteilato, "commanded") for Mark's διεστείλατο (diesteilato, "charged"); he used ὅραμα (horama, "vision") where Mark describes "what things they had seen"; and he changed Mark's indefinite "except when" (εἰ μὴ ὅταν, ei mē hotan) to the more precise "until" (ἕως οὗ, heōs hou). Davies and Allison identify these as characteristic Matthean editorial preferences. The UPDV reverts to Mark's text, which preserves the more primitive terminology.

The UPDV also restores Mark 9:10: "And they kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead should mean" (12:21). The compiler deleted this verse entirely, consistent with his broader program of presenting the disciples as comprehending rather than confused (cf. his omission of Mark 6:52 and 8:17). Davies and Allison explain the compiler's motive: "he found it difficult to believe that the disciples could have wondered about the meaning of the (general) resurrection of the dead." But the verse is traditional Markan material, and its suppression reflects the compiler's theological agenda of discipleship-as-understanding — an agenda the UPDV does not share. Mark's puzzled disciples, questioning among themselves what resurrection from the dead could mean, preserve the rawer, earlier tradition.

The Elijah Discussion (12:22-24)

"And they asked him, saying, How is it that the scribes say that Elijah must first come?" The Elijah discussion (12:22-24) comes from canonical Matt 17:10-13, based on Mark 9:11-13. Davies and Allison confirm that "Mark 9:9-13 is undoubtedly the source," and note that the Markan text "teems with confusion" — a characteristic that Matthew cleared up, providing "strong evidence for Markan priority."

The UPDV rewrites this entire section to Mark's form, which preserves several important ambiguities that the compiler resolved. In Mark, Jesus' statement about Elijah is structured as two juxtaposed assertions without explicit resolution: "Elijah indeed comes first, and restores all things: and how is it written of the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be set at nothing? But I say to you, that Elijah has come, and they have also done to him whatever they would, even as it is written of him" (12:23-24). The Markan form preserves an allusion to Isaiah 53 in the phrase "suffer many things and be set at nothing" (πολλὰ πάθῃ καὶ ἐξουδενηθῇ, polla pathē kai exoudenēthē) — language the compiler eliminated.

The compiler rewrote 17:11-12 to clarify the identification of Elijah with John: "Elijah indeed comes, and will restore all things: but I say to you, that Elijah has come already, and they didn't know him, but did to him whatever they would. Even so will the Son of Man also suffer of them." The changes are significant. The compiler added ἤδη (ēdē, "already") to make the temporal point explicit. He inserted "and they didn't know him" (καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτόν) — which Davies and Allison confirm "is redactional" — to explain why Elijah was rejected. He moved Mark's statement about the Son of Man's suffering from its awkward position in Mark 9:12 to a new location as a concluding comparison: "Even so will the Son of Man also suffer of them." And he added the editorial conclusion of 17:13 — "Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist" — a characteristic explanatory gloss that makes explicit what Mark leaves the reader to infer (the same pattern appears at 16:12, where the compiler explains the leaven saying).

Davies and Allison note that the compiler's relocation of Mark 9:12b (the Son of Man suffering) resolves a genuine difficulty in Mark's text — in Mark, the statement "so clumsily interrupts the discussion of Elijah" that Bultmann regarded it as a post-Markan gloss, though Davies and Allison attribute it to Mark himself. The compiler smoothed this over, and the result is clearer. But the UPDV's purpose is not clarity — it is recovery of the underlying tradition. Mark's confused, allusive, Isaianic form represents the earlier layer, and the compiler's editorial improvements, however helpful to the reader, are precisely the kind of clarifying additions that the UPDV strips.

The removal of 17:13 ("Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist") follows the same principle applied to 16:12 in the previous chapter: it is a redactional explanatory gloss with no parallel in Mark.

What the UPDV Removes from This Section

  • Matt 16:16b ("the Son of the living God"): No Markan parallel. Either from M or redactional. Luke also has the shorter form.
  • Matt 16:17-19 (Peter's beatitude, the rock, and the keys): Davies and Allison argue these verses are pre-Matthean tradition with Semitic original, hapax vocabulary, and Johannine attestation. Removed as editorial insertion into a Markan pericope, regardless of ultimate origin.
  • Matt 16:20b ("that he was the Christ"): Specifies what Mark leaves implicit. Compiler's clarification of the messianic secret.
  • Matt 17:6-7 (disciples' prostration and Jesus' touch): "No parallel in either Mark or Luke and is editorial." Compiler's expansion creating a new scene.
  • Matt 17:9 (rewritten to Mark's form): Compiler's vocabulary substitutions (ἐνετείλατο for διεστείλατο, ὅραμα for what they had seen) reverted.
  • Matt 17:10-12 (rewritten to Mark's form): Compiler's clarifications — adding ἤδη, inserting "they didn't know him," relocating the Son of Man suffering statement, dropping the Isaianic allusions — reverted.
  • Matt 17:13 (editorial explanation): "Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist." Redactional gloss with no Markan parallel.

References

  • Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997.
  • Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Rev. ed. Translated by John Marsh. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.